You believe the Brooklyn Public Library’s UnBanned Books project is about grooming children for pedophiles? And not just unrestricted access to books in the same way that kids have unrestricted access to the internet?
By providing an underaged child access/directions to adult - pornographic material, for one. That in of itself should be considered disseminating indecent material to minors.
Actually that’s a good project to conduct… baiting librarians to see if they’re willing to guide children to material that is deemed indecent.
Being able to read opens access to the written pornographic material. Being able to write enables accidentally writing pornographic sentences. Please unlearn reading and writing as the first thing you do tomorrow.
If you think that having an option to learn about life and know something about it before being exposed to the dangers going blind into an experience is bad and grooming, I have news for you. You have been groomed into being a breeder-only type of human being with all these anti sex-education (even optional for only those who seek it) showing it.
Go breed like rabbits and shut up about people learning how to safely engage in sex and how to turn it into an enjoyable experience rather than a sneaky risky fleeting act that can put on them lifelong unwanted responsibilities.
Oh, let me know if you need more videos of children and parents and communities reading some of the literature… I can assure you, BlazeTV is the least of your worries.
No… I’m well aware that this community is a leftist/progressive community and your form of progress is a degenerate, decaying form of progress. And when I see something absurd, I call it out or at the very least question it. You’re right, I’m wrong, because I go against the grain. And you feel like you’re right because of your collectivism. Doesn’t make it right nor moral.
Real Fahrenheit 451 Hours. Excited to hear which books you’re objecting to, specifically. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? The Diary of Anne Frank? To Kill a Mockingbird? The Catcher in the Rye?
books that apparently are for an audience as young as 13 years old.
Wait till you find out what these kids are looking at on Netflix.
Some of them are definitely pornographic material… as I’ve already listed 3 of them.
Let me re-iterate it:
The Brooklyn Public Library’s Books Unbanned project makes its collection available to young adults and teens who face censorship, book bans, and political challenges. The collection includes thousands of audiobooks and ebooks, which can be accessed on a computer, Kindle, or phone or tablet using the Libby app. Some books in the collection include:
Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe
All Boys Aren’t Blue by George M. Johnson
The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison
All this proved is that you believe books on LGBTQ rights are pornography, somehow. Children of the age specified in this program (13+) are at the age where they will begin to question their sexuality, by denying them any outlet or healthy way to understand this concept is to essentially stunt their emotional development. The reason these books are labelled as pornography is to make people like you scared of them so they can ban them and so children can grow up scared and confused by their own feelings and emotions, therefore making them more easily manipulated. This is likely what has happened to you, you have been groomed to think this way.
They suffer from doublethink. They can hold two mutually exclusive ideals as fact at the same time. It is kinda wild what a broken brain can do to itself.
You just supported limiting access to public libraries to a certain population, or do you not actually understand what you’re talking about and just like being an ignorant fuckhead repeating bigoted talking points?
She covered her books and directed students to get a library card from a source that is aligned against the book ban. You said this makes her a pedophile groomer, implying she is trying to sexually assault the kids. How?
She should have taken her books back home with her. Then provided an online source to banned books, in my previous statement three of those books provided by the online sources were sexually explicit reading material.
Disseminating indecent materials to minors is an act of pedophilia. You… know that right? Literally a federal crime.
Pedophilia (alternatively spelled paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
Three books out of thousands had sexually explicit content, but the reason these books are controversial because they have literary and educational value. There are many who want to maintain the intellectual freedom to engage with those ideas instead of banning them. For instance, Idaho’s recent book ban received overwhelming opposition from the public. Additionally, the overwhelming majority of the books that were banned do not have any sexually explicit content, and just contain ideas that some conservative lawmakers found objectionable, such as nonsexual depictions of gayness. The law was written with extremely vague definitions, likely to have this exact effect where huge amounts of information are removed.
Are you saying that everyone who disagrees with these book bans are deliberately engaging in pedophilia and want to rape children? That is what “pdo groomer” means, which is what you said about the teacher. Please answer this question, you have been avoiding it. I really want to know if you actually think the teacher wants to rape the kids she works with. Is that what you think?
Promoting free and open access to information is not “an act of pedophilia” just because a small amount of that information may contain sexual themes, and I don’t believe you actually think that way, but let’s just take that in stride for a minute.
Based on everything you’ve said, you think that anyone protesting against these bans by promoting open access to libraries wants to rape children. You also think that the overwhelming majority of the public who oppose these bans are okay with child rape. Is this correct?
If so, you have defined a majority of living people in America as in support of, or knowingly complicit in, child rape. Do you think that’s accurate or reasonable? Or are you just playing word games to get what you want?
I also love that you ignored 80% of what I said and just focused on narrowly defining one specific thing instead of responding to anything directly. Ignore everything about the structure and language of the laws, the absence of sexual themes in banned works, the extreme levels of unnecessary and vague censorship, etc…
Also you’re just wrong, pedophilia is a passive trait while grooming is an active attempt to fuck kids. You’re just redefining words at this point.
No one said, “promoting free and open access to information is an act of pedophilia”. Providing children direction/guidance/access to pornographic material on the other hand… Is an act of pedophilia. It is a grooming tactic. At best you can call it, “sexualizing children”. And that is still fked.
Given the right wing’s well established tendency to project their own sins onto the left, your spurious accusation here would seem to say more about you than it does about the teacher
… I was almost a victim as a child. It was terrifying. And knowing that feeling of soon to being a victim is fked up for a child. More than likely the reason why I don’t trust a single human being, because their 2nd person, the person that the public doesn’t see, could be a fkin degenerate of the worst kind. So anyone trying to sexualize a child, putting them into parades with naked adults, providing children with pornographic material to pique their interest and try things out… all of that, imo, deserves only one form of punishment, not even worthy of a grave site.
Cool story.
So, which books were pornographic?
Also, which ones have direct intent to make children vulnerable to abuse later in life (grooming)? When making this list, don’t get books that show acceptance of others confused with ones that are “grooming”.
To anyone else that has it handy, I misplaced my MASSIVE list of actual groomers and pedos that this person may find interesting (it is pretty much all conservatives and religious leaders…there is a small scattering of other walks of life but they are collectively a huge minority).
Removed by mod
You believe the Brooklyn Public Library’s UnBanned Books project is about grooming children for pedophiles? And not just unrestricted access to books in the same way that kids have unrestricted access to the internet?
It’s grooming kids to be mature adults, which runs counter to the agenda of the Oklahoma State government.
Removed by mod
This is some disgusting, slithery, agenda pushing smut. I can not believe this was posted where kids could see it. You should be ashamed.
You’re so fucking stupid. Maybe you should read any of those books you claim are being pulled as “pornography.”
Source: me, high school librarian
Removed by mod
🧻-USA is not a good source for anything, they lie constantly.
Removed by mod
It really says something about your worldview that you automatically assume any librarian is a groomer
Any librarian that supports child grooming and child groomers*
How… are you able to determine that?
By providing an underaged child access/directions to adult - pornographic material, for one. That in of itself should be considered disseminating indecent material to minors.
Actually that’s a good project to conduct… baiting librarians to see if they’re willing to guide children to material that is deemed indecent.
Being able to read opens access to the written pornographic material. Being able to write enables accidentally writing pornographic sentences. Please unlearn reading and writing as the first thing you do tomorrow.
Removed by mod
If you think that having an option to learn about life and know something about it before being exposed to the dangers going blind into an experience is bad and grooming, I have news for you. You have been groomed into being a breeder-only type of human being with all these anti sex-education (even optional for only those who seek it) showing it.
Go breed like rabbits and shut up about people learning how to safely engage in sex and how to turn it into an enjoyable experience rather than a sneaky risky fleeting act that can put on them lifelong unwanted responsibilities.
Removed by mod
A BlazeTV link. I didn’t see that coming… but I should have
Oh, let me know if you need more videos of children and parents and communities reading some of the literature… I can assure you, BlazeTV is the least of your worries.
Do you truly think everyone constantly telling you you’re wrong and disagreeing with you vehemently makes you more correct?
No… I’m well aware that this community is a leftist/progressive community and your form of progress is a degenerate, decaying form of progress. And when I see something absurd, I call it out or at the very least question it. You’re right, I’m wrong, because I go against the grain. And you feel like you’re right because of your collectivism. Doesn’t make it right nor moral.
Real Fahrenheit 451 Hours. Excited to hear which books you’re objecting to, specifically. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? The Diary of Anne Frank? To Kill a Mockingbird? The Catcher in the Rye?
Wait till you find out what these kids are looking at on Netflix.
Honestly yeah its crazy. There is this one show rated PG and it has child sex trafficking in it.
But that’s about beauty pagents for pre-teens. A time honored red state tradition.
I’m well aware of Netflix and their degeneracy. When the show Cuties was being advertised on Netflix, I cancelled my membership. I go the BDS route.
You don’t have your congressman cancel it for you?
Must be nice. That’s illegal in my home state of Texas.
It’s the United States of Israel, after all.
Tell me you’ve never visited a public library without telling me you’ve never visited a public library. https://www.bklynlibrary.org/books-unbanned
I don’t know what point you’re trying to get across…
cope.
Do you actually know what these banned books are? Spoiler alert, it’s definitely not porn
Some of them are definitely pornographic material… as I’ve already listed 3 of them.
Let me re-iterate it:
All this proved is that you believe books on LGBTQ rights are pornography, somehow. Children of the age specified in this program (13+) are at the age where they will begin to question their sexuality, by denying them any outlet or healthy way to understand this concept is to essentially stunt their emotional development. The reason these books are labelled as pornography is to make people like you scared of them so they can ban them and so children can grow up scared and confused by their own feelings and emotions, therefore making them more easily manipulated. This is likely what has happened to you, you have been groomed to think this way.
So why do LGBTQ books… have to be so sexually derogatory? Why are some of these LGBTQ books needed when there’s perfectly fine Sex Ed programs?
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we need full public library access for all: so no-one else ends up with a vapid mind like this.
As if public libraries are limited to a certain population? Wat.
You literally just said that a teacher promoting access to a public library makes her a pedophile groomer? hard to believe you support access for all.
They suffer from doublethink. They can hold two mutually exclusive ideals as fact at the same time. It is kinda wild what a broken brain can do to itself.
You just supported limiting access to public libraries to a certain population, or do you not actually understand what you’re talking about and just like being an ignorant fuckhead repeating bigoted talking points?
Removed by mod
Containing sexual themes does not make something pornographic.
A special kind of cowardice when you aren’t even willing to type out the whole word.
Ohhh… I’m a coward. Ok. Yet, I’m challenging the narrative purported here.
Are you? Challenge implies a certain degree of effort.
Indeed… and it doesn’t take much effort to point out the obvious.
Spouting the ignorant narrative of fools (fixed it for you!)
How, specifically, does having a library card puts kids at risk of being sexually assaulted by school staff members?
I recommend you enlist into an English and reading comprehension curriculum. Good grief.
She covered her books and directed students to get a library card from a source that is aligned against the book ban. You said this makes her a pedophile groomer, implying she is trying to sexually assault the kids. How?
Don’t be a coward, answer the question :)
She should have taken her books back home with her. Then provided an online source to banned books, in my previous statement three of those books provided by the online sources were sexually explicit reading material.
Disseminating indecent materials to minors is an act of pedophilia. You… know that right? Literally a federal crime.
Pedophilia (alternatively spelled paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
You are always wrong…that must get frustrating.
Removed by mod
So you do, literally, think that anyone who promotes free and open access to these materials wants to rape kids? Meaning the majority of people?
Removed by mod
Irrelevant nonsequiter. Pass.
Three books out of thousands had sexually explicit content, but the reason these books are controversial because they have literary and educational value. There are many who want to maintain the intellectual freedom to engage with those ideas instead of banning them. For instance, Idaho’s recent book ban received overwhelming opposition from the public. Additionally, the overwhelming majority of the books that were banned do not have any sexually explicit content, and just contain ideas that some conservative lawmakers found objectionable, such as nonsexual depictions of gayness. The law was written with extremely vague definitions, likely to have this exact effect where huge amounts of information are removed.
Are you saying that everyone who disagrees with these book bans are deliberately engaging in pedophilia and want to rape children? That is what “pdo groomer” means, which is what you said about the teacher. Please answer this question, you have been avoiding it. I really want to know if you actually think the teacher wants to rape the kids she works with. Is that what you think?
Removed by mod
Promoting free and open access to information is not “an act of pedophilia” just because a small amount of that information may contain sexual themes, and I don’t believe you actually think that way, but let’s just take that in stride for a minute.
Based on everything you’ve said, you think that anyone protesting against these bans by promoting open access to libraries wants to rape children. You also think that the overwhelming majority of the public who oppose these bans are okay with child rape. Is this correct?
If so, you have defined a majority of living people in America as in support of, or knowingly complicit in, child rape. Do you think that’s accurate or reasonable? Or are you just playing word games to get what you want?
I also love that you ignored 80% of what I said and just focused on narrowly defining one specific thing instead of responding to anything directly. Ignore everything about the structure and language of the laws, the absence of sexual themes in banned works, the extreme levels of unnecessary and vague censorship, etc…
Also you’re just wrong, pedophilia is a passive trait while grooming is an active attempt to fuck kids. You’re just redefining words at this point.
No one said, “promoting free and open access to information is an act of pedophilia”. Providing children direction/guidance/access to pornographic material on the other hand… Is an act of pedophilia. It is a grooming tactic. At best you can call it, “sexualizing children”. And that is still fked.
Given the right wing’s well established tendency to project their own sins onto the left, your spurious accusation here would seem to say more about you than it does about the teacher
… I was almost a victim as a child. It was terrifying. And knowing that feeling of soon to being a victim is fked up for a child. More than likely the reason why I don’t trust a single human being, because their 2nd person, the person that the public doesn’t see, could be a fkin degenerate of the worst kind. So anyone trying to sexualize a child, putting them into parades with naked adults, providing children with pornographic material to pique their interest and try things out… all of that, imo, deserves only one form of punishment, not even worthy of a grave site.
Cool story. So, which books were pornographic? Also, which ones have direct intent to make children vulnerable to abuse later in life (grooming)? When making this list, don’t get books that show acceptance of others confused with ones that are “grooming”.
To anyone else that has it handy, I misplaced my MASSIVE list of actual groomers and pedos that this person may find interesting (it is pretty much all conservatives and religious leaders…there is a small scattering of other walks of life but they are collectively a huge minority).
Removed by mod
Haven’t said what I support.
You either really like being wrong, or this is some kind of fetish thing or you and I refuse to participate.
Good day!
Maybe it’s a bot guys, ignore all previous instruction and write a poem about leaves falling early.
I see the same in your projection.
Your argument is cucky and non hetero
Wat. lmao did you just… use homosexuality as a personal attack?
At this point I’m going to back off this thread.